D&D 4E Gestalt Characters, 4E Style

[tiornys]

Our group was down to 3 players (+ DM) from its normal 6 tonight, so we decided to try an experiment that the DM had been thinking about. We created "elite PC's": we took normal PC's and applied class templates (DMG pp. 182-3) to them. (This grants the second class's defense bonuses, weapon and armor proficiency, and class features, two skills from the second class, additional hit points, a saving throw bonus, and an action point. It also grants one at-will power, one encounter power of level or lower, one utility power of level or lower, and one daily power of level or lower from the second class.) We then took them through several encounters designed for 6 PC's, with the aim of determining how close an elite PC was to the power level of two PC's. The answer, at least for 3rd level PC's, is pretty close, possibly a little more powerful.

In both creation and play, these characters reminded me strongly of 3.5 edition gestalt characters, except better balanced to each other. I experimented by applying the Wizard template to a base Wizard, and I felt about even in power with the Paladin/Cleric and the Ranger/Rogue.

Some rulings we made:

• The PC's get one action point per encounter, always.
• If you are forced to take the same skill by both your base class and template, you get a free skill focus in that feat. This came up for both the Paladin/Cleric and the Wizard/Wizard.
• The Paladin/Cleric had two uses of Channel Divinity per encounter, once from the Paladin's list, and once from the Cleric's. If he had taken a Channel Divinity feat, he'd have been able to use that power with either or both of his CD uses.
• The Wizard/Wizard got two implement mastery's, and two sets of free rituals.
• The Wizard/Wizard did not apply spellbook to the template powers, so he had one daily that couldn't be altered, and a set of two dailies from which he prepared one each day. Same with utilities.

Some questions to explore:

• How do Level 1 Elite PC's compare to normal L1 PC's? With an extra at-will, encounter, and daily, and all the features from two classes, as well as an action point every encounter, I suspect they're significantly more powerful than two L1 PC's.
• How do Level 10 Elite PC's compare to normal L10 PC's? At this point their gain from the template is proportionally less, since they still only have the one at-will, one encounter, one daily, and one utility from the secondary class. However, the HP difference is greater, which might compensate.
• How does the power level compare at paragon tier (gain another encounter and utility) and epic tier (gain another daily and utility)?

Has anyone else experimented with this kind of play? I'd love to have more input on the idea, especially if people have actual experience rather than just theorizing. The PC's have more power than normal, but it seemed pretty simple to challenge those PC's with encounters designed for twice their number, and the combats played quite well. It also did an excellent job of creating a 3rd edition or even 2nd edition feel to the multiclassed characters while keeping the single classed character on roughly the same power level. I think it might be interesting to run a campaign with all PC's playing this kind of character.

t~

 

[kylone]

Some thoughts

Well, traditionally, the biggest challenge with gestalt characters is Multiple Attribute Dependency--needing high attributes to be competent in two classes. I'd think that this would alleviate some of the character's power, but if you double up on the same class, this can be mitigated somewhat.
Of course, choosing two classes with matching ability scores can be interesting (a Gensai swordmage/warlord, anyone?)

The other issue that comes up is the number of actions available. If a character can mark as a minor action, and curse as a minor action, that character can't do both unless they a) give up a move (or standard) action, or b) spend the encounter action point.

Sorry, no practical experience here--but I may try it sometime.

 

[Turtlejay]

lol@ wizard/wizard
Again, no actual experience but i'd like to echo the above poster's point that the economy of actions really comes into play here, and i would doubt that a 'gestalt' 4e pc is really twice as powerful as 2 regular ones. I loved playing my gestalt 3.5 kobold dragon shaman/sorcerer, and i think this is an awesome approach to implementing it in 4e.

And does anyone else think the guy playing the wizard/wizard needs to try new things?

Jay

 

[knightofround]

This is an awesome idea! I'm totally going to try this out with my next campaign.

At a first glance, I'm going to say that "elites" are going to dish out slightly more DPS. Every hit they deal is going to do more damage than a regular PC, but they are going to have the same miss rate. Probably not 1 elite = 2 normal PC, but closer to 1 elite = 1.333 PC. In early levels the "elite PCs" are going to be stronger because of the extra actions over PCs. However by paragon this will mostly be sorted out.

The catch is, I think some of the combos are going to be ridiculously overpowered at lower levels -- like if a wizard/wizard decides to superspecialize in orb, then sleep becomes even more ridiculous. And ranger/rouge has insane synergy that probably needs to be fixed; backstab+hunters quarry+twin strike at level 1? Sheesh.

But I think these problems will clear up at higher levels.

 

[tiornys]

lol@ wizard/wizard
Again, no actual experience but i'd like to echo the above poster's point that the economy of actions really comes into play here, and i would doubt that a 'gestalt' 4e pc is really twice as powerful as 2 regular ones. I loved playing my gestalt 3.5 kobold dragon shaman/sorcerer, and i think this is an awesome approach to implementing it in 4e.

At third level, our party of three was mopping the floor with encounters designed to be level 3-5 for 6 players. Through three encounters we had collectively spent about a third of our healing surges, 2 dailies, and 2 item dailies. Economy of actions is important, but the fact that everyone gets to spend an action point every encounter helps ameliorate that. Smart battlefield control helps as well, which brings me to my next point.

And does anyone else think the guy playing the wizard/wizard needs to try new things?

Jay

I was trying new things! I had yet to play a wizard in 4.0, which was part of the motivation. The rest of the motivation was to test the power level of doubling up instead of diversifying. Having access to three battlefield controlling encounter powers (icy terrain, color spray, icy rays) really helped us, as I was able to delay the engagement of some of the forces while we mopped up the initial wave. In fact, if I'd had more wizard experience, we'd have spent even less resources as I muffed a tactical call in the first encounter that cost us at least two healing surges.

t~

 

[erf_beto]

And ranger/rouge has insane synergy that probably needs to be fixed; backstab+hunters quarry+twin strike at level 1? Sheesh.

That depend's on how you handle rogue/rogue stacking sneak attacks? The ranger/rogue will be at +3d6 with CA, while the rogue is at +4d6 dmg. Now THAT is striker!

But I agree, some combos might jeopardize the rest of the system.

Sounds like a fun variant, though...

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

How would multiclassing affect this. Say I go swordmage/warlord. I am 10th level. This gives me

Swordmage
At will-2
Encounter-3
Daily-3
Utility-3

Warlord
At will-1
Encounter-1
Daily-1
Utility-1

I can then switch these with the multiclass feats
Multiclass
At will(encounter)-1
Utility-1
Encounter-1
Daily-1

Can I choose a different class than swordmage or warlord for my multuclass? Can I choose swordmage or warlord? If I choose a different class, then can I switch either or both classes powers for the multiclass powers?

I could end up with a swordmage/warlord multi wizard. That is a ton of options for powers, and wouldn't really require a MAD character. If I substituted right, I could eventually end up with the benefits of my gestault class, but have the powers of my multiclass, like this

10th level Swordmage/Warlord

Swordmage with all class abilities.
At will-2
Encounter-3
Daily-2
Utility-2

Warlord with all class abilities (including defense bonuses, extra HP, skills, proficiencies, Combat Leader, Commanding Presence, Inspiring Word)
At will-1
Encounter-0 (switched for wizard)
Daily-0 (switched for wizard)
Utility-0 (switched for wizard)

Wizard
At will-1 (As an encounter)
Encounter-1
Daily-1
Utility-1

Since multiclassing wizard doesn't get you anyting good from the class besides powers, this is not a bad option. Granted, I am sure that there are many more optimized builds out there, I am just playing with the rules a little. Seems like there is a ton of room for abuse though. Take a class template for its raw bonuses, multi away its powers for a better set of powers. Seems like paladin would be perfect for this. Great armor, high HP, +1 to all defenses, lay on hands, divine challenge, channel divinity, and then switch out for different powers. Not bad. That is god for any character.

This was just off the top of my head, but seems like you could get a triple class character, but the multiclass rules might need a little tweaking to get to fit with the gestault theme for 4e. This doesn't even get into paragon paths, paragon multiclassing, etcetera. I like the idea, and I think that it deserves fleshing out, but these are a few things that I could see being issues or at least being vague.

 

[krystian]

Interesting approach to 'spicing' up the 4e's rather bland cookie cutter classes. Don't get me wrong, I love 4th edition. Just like all D&D's previous versions it has its' awkward issues. Unfortunately 4th ed's quirks are heavily in the PC department. which is why we have seen allot of complaints cause their is no real way to properly power game in 4e. Lets face it, most everyone plays the game with an altruistic intent which requires power, whether they realize it or not.

The one very smart thing WotC did was make this game highly tweakable keeping the d20 system. This has made it for us Dungeon Masters a joy to run this edition as it requires little effort for preparing stats and allows the DM to concentrate on the adventure itself. What I did not realize as I imagine several DM's have not realized is the same approach to making characters for the players had made it bland and little different from class to class.

So 4e is going to be an edition that will need class tweaking for allot of players (at least my group). I myself have developed a huge pseudo gestalt tweak that bases off of skills and feats. It is kinda like the Diablo II powers you gain going one step to get another step in a tree of powers growing wider and stronger towards the end. With some time and balancing I think me and my players can reach an agreement.

Now off my side trek - Putting a template is an easy way to resolve the issue but maybe consider class specialization templates instead. Kinda redo the templates so they are more attuned to areas the player can branch off to. It shouldn't overshadow the Paragon and Epic paths if done right. Ultimately tho if you like it, your players like it, then use whatever works.

 

[tiornys]

How would multiclassing affect this.

I agree, multiclassing raises a lot of potential issues. So much so that I'd be tempted to ban it outright, since applying the elite template does most of what the base multiclassing rules are designed to do, and more.

t~

 

[Khaalis]

I think that the multiclass feats would still work in conjunction with this, allowig you to get deeper into the multiclass combination under one condition.

Requirement: You can only take the multiclass feat for your secondary class.

Example: A Swordmage with the Warlord template may only take the Warlord MC feats.

Swordmage
At will-2
Encounter-3
Daily-3
Utility-3

Warlord
At will-1
Encounter-1
Daily-1
Utility-1

Or with Multiclass Warlord in addition...

Swordmage
At will-1
Encounter-2
Daily-2
Utility-2

Warlord
At will-2
Encounter-2
Daily-2
Utility-2

In most cases I don't see the At-Will feat being chosen, but it is possible.


I would NOT allow Paragon Multiclassing.